[sustran] "We dont need theologians, we need analysts."

[eric.britton at ecoplan.org]

Hello Wendell,

When you say "we need analysts", I can assure you that you will get no argument
from here.  A background in physics and economics makes one kind of interested
in getting the sums right.  But as the saying goes, context counts for something
too.  Which seems to be very much your problem here and perhaps elsewhere.
Let's have a peek.

Your heavily propagandized and egregiously subsidized auto-based system is going
to have to cope with the following in its struggle to move up from grotesque (I
don't think the word is too strong) un-sustainability to something significantly
closer to what we need, and I for one would like to see how this is going to
work.  Let's take a quick look at some of the ballparks where we gotta get our
numbers lined up on this:

1. Pollution control?  We have some 700 million odd ICE vehicles out there on
the world's roads these days. Let me ask you, about how long it will take to get
most if not all of them converted to today's top of the line pollution
standards?  Including of course in Lagos, Cairo and Katmandu.

2. Road Pricing?  I guess by this you mean electronic and other toll systems?
Where do you see the conclusive evidence not only that this can work but that it
is working in a way that will lead to ready replication in, say, my lifetime?

Gee, if that was all there was to sustainability then I'd hate even to place my
bets on the auto culture as making the needed in-roads on the necessary global
scale in time to avert quite a number of eco and other catastrophes.  Don't get
me wrong, clean engines and clean fuels are useful steps, but they should not be
confused with the main action on the sustainability wars. But of course, that's
not the end of it. In fact, it's barely the beginning.  We also must be prepared
to factor in the critical basics on. . .

3. Road accidents?  And the half a million people who are killed by autos each
year?  And the millions who are maimed and forced to live truncated lives
(including my great uncle, the noted painter James Britton, who was turned from
a happy productive artist, teacher and community leader into a depressive
cripple and suicide, thanks to one of those sustainable vehicles?

4. Public health?

5. Urban tissue?

6. Sense of community?

7. Social justice?

This is of course not the end of the list as our many qualified friends here in
this good forum will I am sure be pleased to point out - and I am sorry that
this is not the day for me to put aside my other pressing work to fill in the
well known numbers here -- but do let me throw one more small qualifier that may
also need to be brought into the analysis.

First though, a quick aside.  I think that I am a way above average driver.  I
am an athlete, in very good shape, have great eyesight, good peripheral vision,
excellent flexibility in neck and torso, don't smoke, don't drink, never take my
eyes off the road, have a steady unaggressive personality, am resoundingly
polite an always give way to pedestrians and cyclists, maintain my car very
carefully, don't use a cell phone in a car, use my ears and nose consistently to
pick up alarm signals, have come up to car driving through a chain of knowledge
and reflexes that took me from trikes and bikes and on through motor cycles and
large trucks, refuse to go into heavy traffic, won't drive when tired, etc.  I
also make enough money so that I can afford to drive.  A model citizen driver if
I say so myself.  (My sins and weaknesses express themselves in other ways as my
friends and wife will gladly attest).

I run you through  this long and boring litany since based on three decades of
careful observation and study, I am persuaded that, power steering, cruise
control and the next latest help from the ITS crowd not excepted, at least half
of the people out there on the road should definitely not be taking charge of a
couple of tons of steel and rubber for all these reasons and more.  THE REAL
MAJORITY OF ALL PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE DRIVING - AND THE ONLY REASONS THAT THEY
ARE OUT THERE MENACING LIFE AND LIMB ON THE ROADS IS BECAUSE THE CAR CULTURE HAS
LEFT THEM WITHOUT A CHOICE.

So the trick is not to have a bias against drivers -- but a definite bias in
favor of people, safety, economy (for all those who cannot really afford the car
habit), access, neighborliness and all the rest.  Which has most notably not
been the case in the past and which, if we judge by the expenditures of our hard
won taxpayer dollars continues to be the case in most places till this day.

I know that the Bush administration has taken the position that global warming
may be a problem but that we need more "analysis" to figure out what to do next.
What can I say?

Respectfully,

Eric

Eric Britton

The @New Mobility Forum is permanently at http://newmobility.org
The Commons ___Sustainable Development and Social Justice___
Le Frene, 8/10 rue Joseph Bara, 75006 Paris, France
Eric.Britton at NewMobility.org    Tel: +331 4326 1323


= = = = =
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org
[mailto:owner-sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org]On Behalf Of Wendell Cox
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 5:55 PM
To: eric.britton at ecoplan.org; sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org
Cc: Todd Litman
Subject: [sustran] Re: a bias against drivers?

Eric..

Sorry. Not all of us have been converted to this view. With road pricing and
improved pollution control, an auto based system may well be sustainable, at
the appropriate densities. The issue has to do with overall objectives and
there is no reason to introduce biases into the matter. I like Todd's
criteria, if restated in unbiased terms. Let the evaluation determine the
strategies. We dont need theologians, we need analysts.

Best regards,
Wendell